Skip to content

Author: scott lazarowitz

Romney Starts 2nd Losing Presidential Campaign

Socialist goofball Willard “Mitt” Romney has started his next failed presidential campaign, and, frankly, I still can’t figure out what’s wrong with him. He says he wants to “put America back on a course of greatness with a growing economy, good jobs,” etc.

So how is Romney’s becoming president going to “grow the economy” or create “good jobs”? Don’t tell me he is yet another politician who has that “fatal conceit” that Hayek was talking about, the arrogance and hubris that central planners have in their believing that, if they are given governmental powers of coercion and compulsion, they will make the economy better and enrich others.

Willard, why don’t you actually start a business in the private sector that actually will provide jobs, as well as provide a service or goods to others?

Unfortunately, some people are more attracted to positions of political power than have genuine yearning toward the principle of actually serving or helping others. Politics or principle — Willard chooses politics. Like Obama, Bush, McCain, Palin, Clinton, etc.

No, Willard, electing you as president will help America’s economy and prosperity no better than electing Obama has done. Willard has already said that he approves of the Federal Reserve’s monetary monopoly and the federal government’s compulsory power that forces all Americans to have to use the one government-issued currency, no matter how much the dollar has lost its value and continues to crash. Willard also approves of government-controlled health care and mandates and other socialist programs, as well as the counter-productive wars on drugs and terrorism. The government’s own foolish policies on drugs and terrorism have been increasing the occurrences of those activities, not decreasing them. Willard supports unprovoked war waged by the U.S. government against foreign peoples, and the killing of innocents and destruction of other countries that go with it.

I can’t believe how many people I have heard now in the past few days on local Boston talk shows here, saying that no way would they vote for Romney again, especially now as we suffer the effects of his socialist economic distortions in the medical care area via RomneyCare and its expensive mandates and intrusions.

Given that the biggest issue for many Americans for 2010 was ObamaCare — and getting rid of it — you would think that Willard would see that he is unelectable primarily because of the “RomneyCare” that he shoved down our throats here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

The Real Romney:

In cahoots with Ted Kennedy to shove socialist medical care down our throats:



Snubbing a medical patient in typical coward politician fashion, refusing to answer a question about drug legalization:

Protecting Ourselves From the State

April 11, 2011

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

Every now and then, I learn of yet another new aspect of the State’s institutionalization of violence throughout what used to be a much more peaceful society in America. But thanks to the government-run schools, whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate the children to love and be subservient to the State, and thanks to a culture dependent on staring at the boob-tube for its daily hypnosis, we have allowed the State – especially the federal government – to grow to an enormous and dangerous extent, in which if we are to survive, we had better concentrate on stopping that out-of-control Leviathan.

To begin with, I am anguished by an article in this week’s Newsweek, The Military’s Secret Shame, describing how male-against-male sexual assault is now rampant in the U.S. military. According to the article, 50,000 male veterans had been diagnosed as suffering from “male sexual trauma” last year. However, the problem involving female sexual assault victims in the military is also rampant.

According to the Newsweek article, among U.S. military soldiers, “male-on-male assault…is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability.” Verbal and physical attacks now reported include those in which the assailants are throughout the chain of command, by soldiers against their fellow soldiers, as well as by superior officers. In one incident, for example, “a group of men tackled (a soldier), shoved a soda bottle into his rectum, and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car. When he reported the incident…his platoon sergeant told him, ‘You’re the problem. You’re the reason this is happening,’ and refused to take action. ‘You just feel trapped’…”

In another incident, according to the Newsweek article, a soldier “was gang-raped in the barracks by men who said they were showing him who was in charge of the United States. When he reported the attack to unit commanders, he says they told him, ‘It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.’”

Now, if you are a commanding officer in the military and you were confronted by a soldier with such a complaint against other soldiers and you replied in the aforementioned manner, then shame on you. That kind of response by a military officer, supposedly in charge of a unit whose purpose is to “protect and defend” their fellow Americans, is a cowardly protection more of criminals than of fellow citizens. I have heard a few conservatives – those who blindly defend the military, anyway – refer to the Left as “criminal coddlers,” but it appears that the criminal coddlers are also in our military. I would go so far as to say that, not only should soldiers and officers who commit acts of physical assault against others be criminally prosecuted for those crimes of assault, but their commanding officers who ignore the complaints and who protect the assailants should be prosecuted for acting as accessories to those crimes.

In reading those responses by superior officers, “You’re the problem,” “It must have been your fault,” “You must have provoked them,” I am hearing mindless robots, hypnotized zombies in a trance. It is as though they had been given some sort of Military Instruction Manual in which the first instructions are, “The State is good,” “The soldier is bad, and needs to be disciplined, for his own good,” “Always obey authority,” “Submit,” “Yield to the power of the group,” and so on.

At least, that is how it sounds like our “warriors” are behaving. But these behaviors are truly un-American, certainly not ways that perhaps Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine would behave. Truly American principles include respect for the rights to life and liberty of the individual. Even within any police or military, it would be a truly American principle – and the law should reflect this – that one may not use aggression against the persons and property of others. In other societies, however, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, for example, the use of aggression against otherwise peaceful individuals is institutionalized in their laws or public policies, whether it be based on their religious principles, such as Sharia Law, or based on communistic policies that violate individuals’ persons and property.

But in America, in which violence now seems to be so part of the culture and within the military ranks, it’s just barbaric, and sick, and there’s no excuse for it. Should we be surprised to hear of military “Kill Teams,” etc., in which soldiers have been shooting and mutilating innocent civilians abroad and being celebrated by their fellow soldiers? Just how pervasive is this sick behavior within the ranks of this institution that we think will defend us when we’re attacked? There was one soldier within the notorious “Kill Team” unit who was shocked at the indifference amongst the unit toward the lives of their victims, and noted, “I talked to someone and they told me this stuff happens all the time…everyone just wants to kill people at any cost….” And, he wrote that, “The Army really let me down when I thought I would come out here to do good maybe make some change in this country I find out that its all a lie (sic)….”

There is an even more troubling aspect to all this. When seeing that Libyan leader Col. Gaddafi had turned his military against protesters, rebels and civilians, as well as other leaders doing the same thing in other countries such as in Bahrain, some commenters have suggested that such tyrannical violence could never happen here in the United States.

However, there already is precedence of that in America, so those who say “It can’t happen here” are incorrect. As economist and historian Thomas DiLorenzo has noted, during the mid-19th Century War to Prevent Southern Independence, President Abraham Lincoln’s army murdered hundreds of military conscription protestors in the North, and

“Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers…censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment….”

And all that was in addition to Lincoln’s army and its co-conspirators murdering tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians, mostly in the South.

More recently were the U.S. government’s siege and murders at Ruby Ridge, and the U.S. government’s mass murders at Waco in 1993. And of course, there are the countless murders and assaults by local police departments against unarmed, innocent Americans on a daily basis. And due to the increasing militarization of local police, we really ought to be concerned, especially given how commonplace it is that military veterans, including those with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, are joining police departments.

It seems that what used to be a genuine loyalty among Americans to our families and our country, and to the values of peace and liberty that were prevalent at the time of America’s founding, has gradually turned into a loyalty to the State, especially to the federal government. This blind loyalty and obedience to the State, in which the loyalists look the other way when authority figures act abusively against their own people, is at the heart of growing perversions within our society and our culture.

But given the rampant militarization and growing police statism in our society, this is the time that we will really need those courageous members of the police and military who are not afraid to act disobediently toward their superiors, especially if given orders to act violently against their fellow Americans. We must encourage those who are actually brave enough to stand up to authority to protect us from the government.

As Jacob Hornberger, President of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has noted,

“Historically, governments had misused standing armies in two ways, both of which ultimately subjected the citizenry to tyranny. One was to engage in faraway wars, which inevitably entailed enormous expenditures, enabling the government to place ever-increasing tax burdens on the people. Such wars also inevitably entailed “patriotic” calls for blind allegiance to the government so long as the war was being waged…

“The second way to use a standing army to impose tyranny was the direct one — the use of troops to establish order and obedience among the citizenry. Ordinarily, if a government has no huge standing army at its disposal, many people will choose to violate immoral laws that always come with a tyrannical regime; that is, they engage in what is commonly known as “civil disobedience” — the disobedience to immoral laws. But as the Chinese people discovered at Tiananmen Square, when the government has a standing army to enforce its will, civil disobedience becomes much more problematic…”

For those who think it is absurd that the government could ever turn against the citizens here in America, we already have those occurrences as part of our history. So when we are faced with not just an economic downturn but a crashing, defunct dollar, hyperinflation and widespread unemployment, impoverishment and food riots, and martial law, then that will be the time to be concerned about our own military and local police turning the guns on us. Now should be a good time to question the legitimacy of a standing army in the first place. For the past century, the U.S. military has been used not as a defense against foreign invaders on our shores and borders, but as aggressors, as the president’s own personal army, from Wilson’s “making the world safe for democracy” to Bush’s crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama’s reckless destruction in Pakistan and Libya. These statist presidents have made a mess of things, and if there were no organized military at their disposal, they couldn’t have caused so much worldwide damage.

But what are some ways out of this, ways for us – those of us who just want to live our lives peacefully – to prevent our persons and property from getting abused and violated by people who would brutally kill and mutilate unarmed civilians at whim, who would gang rape their fellow comrades for the sake of exercising their lust for power? In fact, how could we possibly expect those with assigned armed officialdom and authority to protect us from criminals and foreign invaders if the officials show themselves to be harmful even to each other? We certainly can’t rely on the State for protection after all, given that these are agents of the State. There isn’t even anything that the “good” agents of the State, such as Ron Paul, can do, because the population in general has become such obedient defenders of the State and its violence, and the political class and its army of bureaucrats – military and otherwise – have become just too entrenched.

One way to prevent the possible horrors that, if the current trends continue, are inevitable, is through secession. The states need to secede from the federal government and declare their independence and sovereignty. I know there are some who believe that such attempts toward independence would merely replace federal government control with state government control, in which our lives and property would still be under the territorial compulsory control of state government. However, once the people of the states have unshackled the oppressive tyranny of the centralized federal regime in Washington, they can then work to get rid of their state’s government, and give cities and towns more local independence and sovereignty, and so on.

Unfortunately, the above possibility still does not seem to be a possibility, because too many people are fixated on trying to get the agents of the State to do the seceding, such as through state legislatures drafting one useless secession legislation after another. Such a prospective way toward freedom is just not realistic.

What is necessary is for the inhabitants of these U.S. territories to engage in non-compliance in the way of non-violent civil disobedience. The most necessary acts of civil disobedience will be those members of the police and military to not follow orders by their superiors, orders of actions that such officers know deep down are immoral and that they know they should not obey.

Other acts of civil disobedience that may be necessary in the possible coming days of the federal government’s crackdown on our liberty include acts in the medical area, in energy and in the judicial area.

Private doctors and patients, clinics and insurers, and other medical providers need to totally disregard all arbitrary federal and state laws and regulations that violate their inalienable rights of voluntary contract and medical privacy. The more that government has intruded into our medical matters, the more tyrannical it has become.

The people of the states, especially private land owners, need to ignore all environmental and energy-related federal and state laws and regulations, and begin exploring for natural resources for their energy needs. Obviously, the compulsory dependence on government’s control over our energy needs was never a good idea. The federal government continuously acts aggressively abroad, provokes foreigners, and will no doubt cause another oil embargo against the U.S. These imperialistic military campaigns are what have fueled the aforementioned growing sickness of rape and barbaric behaviors within the military, as well as the militarization of local police departments.

Also, private citizens need to set up their own private judicial decision-making services, as described in economist and philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Private Law, as an alternative to the current self-serving, State-mandated judicial monopoly.

If Barack Obama, U.S. governors and local authorities send the military, National Guard and police after such non-violent yet civilly-disobedient, peaceful Americans, these violent authoritarian actions should be seen as the true criminal actions. It is certainly not criminal when peaceful citizens engage in voluntary associations that harm no one. Except that such good people are not showing obedience to the State, and that’s the bottom line.

It is for all these reasons that Americans needs to work on persuading their members of local police forces, as well as local military vets, of the true, criminal nature of the State and why they – the local police and military agents – should themselves disobey orders given to them by the government.

General Petraeus to CIA?

NPR is reporting rumors that Gen. David Petraeus is being considered to replace Leon Panetta as head of the CIA, while Panetta is rumored to replace Bob Gates as Defense Secretary. If Petraeus is to be the next CIA chief, Jim White at Firedoglake commented to look for Petraeus to “once again wipe his failure-laden slate clean and jump onto the drone bandwagon.”

In a piece of about a year ago, President Petraeus?, Antiwar.com’s Kelley Vlahos wrote on the general’s schmoozing and politicking amongst fellow Big Government travelers, such as at an AEI appearance in 2006 that also included Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz (when Wolfie wasn’t screwing around with World Bank diplomatic floozies, that is). Vlahos noted,

Thanks to “Team Kagan,” AEI’s Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and a battery of sycophantic pundits and mainstream journalists, Petraeus’ lack of authentic exceptionalism has been transformed into an unshakable “warrior-scholar” persona with his own “legacy” – the Petraeus Doctrine, an updating of old counterinsurgency practices of questionable long-term efficacy, which numerous subordinates and civilian devotees, not just the general, had a hand in engineering. Never mind that the “success” of the doctrine as played out by the Iraq Surge was derived mostly from the super-concentrated use of superior firepower and the bribing of 90,000 Sunni insurgents to stop fighting U.S. forces…

Vlahos quotes International Relations Professor Andrew Bacevich describing Petraeus as a “political general of the worst kind.” Bacevich critiqued Petraeus as having reduced the troop levels in Iraq following the “surge” in 2007 for political reasons, having more to do with pleasing Congressmen getting ready for reelection bids than practical or moral reasons to withdraw troops. And Vlahos also referred to Petraeus’s self-description as a “Rockefeller Republican.” (Yech!)

Thanks to Bush’s Iraq and his Gen. Potatoes, and the Iraq debacle that was started for solely political reasons, Iraq has descended into an Islamic State under repressive Sharia Law and has lost half its Christian population (so far), particularly from the recent massacres. As Bishop Ignatius Metti Metok noted, “Before the change of regime seven years ago, we didn’t have massacres like this.”

So now Petraeus might be head of the CIA? Hmmm. When’s the last time a CIA guy was elevated to U.S. president … I can’t remember.

America Needs to Decentralize – Immediately

I’ve heard Ron Paul state maybe a few times in interviews that, while the U.S. government needs to end the welfare/warfare state (and “welfare” implies the inclusion of Social Security, that Dr. Paul explains is merely another entitlement program and not an “account” or “insurance“), it should end the welfare state gradually so as to reduce any pain and suffering that might be experienced by those who are currently dependent on the government. Well, I disagree with that.

First, Murray Rothbard addressed whether to phase out such entitlement programs or “phase in” freedom and more free market alternatives, in his critique of the Soviet Union’s process of gradual decentralization following the Cold War and the gladly-anticipated end of the Soviet Union. Rothbard suggested, “Do not phase in” the freed markets, and I believe this wise advice can apply to the ending of all welfare state programs including the Social Security and Medicare programs, and the private earnings and wealth that is forcibly taken from the citizenry to fund such a scheme, and the opening up of freedom to allow private entrepreneurial and charitable retirement fund organizations to operate. But because of how extremely painful it is for bureaucrats to let go of their power bases and fiefdoms, it is just not a good idea, morally and economically, to phase in the freed markets:

It is, again, generally accepted that free markets must be arrived at quickly, and that phasing them in slowly and gradually will only delay the goal indefinitely. It is well known that the giant socialist bureaucracy will only seize upon such delay to obstruct the goal altogether…

Holding back, freeing only a few areas at a time, will only impose continuous distortions that will cripple the workings of the market and discredit it in the eyes of an already fearful and suspicious public. But there is also another vital point: the fact that you cannot plan markets applies also to planning for phasing them in. Much as they might delude themselves otherwise, governments and their economic advisers are not in a position of wise Olympians above the economic arena, carefully planning to install the market step by measured step, deciding what to do first, what second, etc. Economists and bureaucrats are no better at planning phase-ins than they are at dictating any other aspect of the market.

To achieve genuine freedom, the role of government and its advisers must be confined to setting their subjects free, as fast and as completely as it takes to unlock their shackles. After that, the proper role of government and its advisers is to get and keep out of the subjects’ way…

There is another reason to quickly return to freedom, besides the impracticality of gradual desocialization, and that is because of the inherent immorality involved in such schemes including Social Security, that involves not only the forcible taking of private earnings but the government’s forcing all Americans to participate in such a scheme. Even more immoral than forcing everyone to participate is that the scheme itself is a fraud, promising or at least implying that workers will “get back what they paid into the system.” As we can see now, the young workers now whose paychecks are being siphoned will not get a dime back when they retire. (That is why it is up to them to begin their own retirement savings and investment accounts now, to prepare themselves for their future!)

When people recognize that a scheme is immoral, involving theft, fraud and coercion, it is morally necessary to end that scheme forthwith. To knowingly continue such criminal schemes (and theft, fraud and coercion are crimes) would be to continue immoral behavior. The fact that something is institutionalized throughout the entire society via its central government makes it no less immoral.

But if Social Security ended, those who currently are dependent on it should not worry, as Jacob Hornberger explained, as the Social Security taxes would also end (and we would need to end the income tax, which is also not only theft but the very definition of “involuntary servitude,” as well as the capital gains taxes and other forms of collectivized theft of individuals’ property and their businesses), and that would free up Americans ability to care for their elderly family members. That is the more honest and aboveboard way of a society’s going about everyday life.

The politicians in Washington who constantly say they “won’t touch Social Security” do so not because they are genuinely concerned for their constituents’ lives and welfare –believers of that fantasy might be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge — no, these pols and hacks care about one thing and one thing only: their life-long parasitic careers feeding at the public trough and their next elections. They are spineless, gutless wonders who are afraid to lose votes.

These are the people who are literally drawn to the sick scheme in Washington like magnets. Friedrich Hayek wrote about how the “worst get on top:”

Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian leader would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism….

He must gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks…

And Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote about “Why Bad Men Rule“:

Since man is as man is, in every society people who covet others’ property exist. Some people are more afflicted by this sentiment than others, but individuals usually learn not to act on such feelings or even feel ashamed for entertaining them. Generally only a few individuals are unable to successfully suppress their desire for others’ property, and they are treated as criminals by their fellow men and repressed by the threat of physical punishment….

(However)…by opening entry into government, anyone is permitted to freely express his desire for others’ property. What formerly was regarded as immoral and accordingly was suppressed is now considered a legitimate sentiment. Everyone may openly covet everyone else’s property in the name of democracy; and everyone may act on this desire for another’s property, provided that he finds entrance into government. Hence, under democracy everyone becomes a threat.

Consequently, under democratic conditions the popular though immoral and anti-social desire for another man’s property is systematically strengthened.

And this scheme we have here, since Day 1 of the United States of America, has caused so many millions and millions of people so much misery, and it will never ever end, except in total collapse and huge suffering, by many more millions and millions of people. That is because, contrary to the daydreaming of those in their never-never land fantasy world, this centralized bureaucracy scheme in Washington can never be “reformed.”

The U.S. federal government is the one single institution most responsible for the downfall and impoverishment of the United States of America. America needs to remove this entire parasite and its shackles — or we’re all literally finished as a society.

Challenging Long-Held Assumptions About Israel and Zionism

It is time once again for me to write about Israel and Zionism, after reading some particular blog posts today. I hope to not lose too many readers, this time, but, if people really want peace in Israel, it is never too late to challenge long-held assumptions related to Israel and Zionism.

Unfortunately, there are many people who get their information from the mainstream American news media who get their information from the Israeli news media who merely are the propaganda mouthpiece for the Israeli government. There are many people in America who, if you asked them to describe in one word the Israeli Palestinians, they would say, “terrorists.” This despite the fact that most of the Palestinian population of greater Israel are just regular people trying to live their lives. A tiny fraction of the Arab population are hostile to the Israeli Jews, but a larger percentage of the Israeli Jewish population are hostile to the Arabs there.

We don’t really hear about these facts, certainly not from our brain-dead news media. But it could be that, here in America, the Israel First crowd and the Islamophobes have made themselves much more openly transparent, this may be the beginning of finally at least questioning many Americans’ and especially the U.S. government’s blind allegiance to Israel. Philip Weiss gives some indication of that from his recent experiences on some college campuses.

But in Israel, according to Ynet News, a recent study on the opinions of Israel’s Arab and Jewish teens and young adults showed that 46% of Israeli Jewish teens support revoking Israeli Arab’s basic political rights in Israel. If this is true, where are these kids getting these racist, hostile attitudes? From their parents? From the Israeli government? From the Israeli media?

Also in the poll, only 14% of the Israeli Jewish youths view democracy as an important national goal, while 26% viewed Jewishness as an important national goal.

It is no surprise to me that 93% of the Jewish youths views the IDF with complete trust, and that 60% of the Jewish youths preferred “strong leadership” over the rule of law, and, when asked how they feel about Arabs, 25% of the Jewish teens responded with “hate.” Not good.

SUNY Buffalo Political Science Professor emeritus Jerome Slater presented this article on his blog: The Jewish State Controversy: Can Zionism Be Reconciled With Justice to the Palestinians?

Slater includes some historical notes, and divides Zionists into rightwing Zionists, liberal-left Zionists and centrist Zionists. And he reviews some of the issues involved in the justifications for Zionism, geographically and politically, as well as the Biblical justifications. He notes that some people cite the Balfour Declaration, but that the Declaration also states that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” (Perhaps the Israeli Jewish youths should read the Balfour Declaration.)

Slater discusses the various possible solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but he does note that, regarding the formal creation of the current state of Israel in the 1940s, “given the unavoidable injustice to the Palestinians, though, it might have been possible for Israel to have mitigated that injustice in a number of ways, particularly if it had refrained from ethnic cleansing and allowed the creation of a Palestinian state.”

Slater considers himself a Zionist, although a “disillusioned” one. In that post, he noted,

Israel is here to stay and almost certainly it will continue as a predominantly Jewish state, whether or not it is formally acknowledged as such. Not only is that a fact of life, but it is a legitimate fact of life: in light of 2000 years of antisemitism it cannot be said that there is no longer a need for a Jewish state, principally but not solely to serve as a refuge for Jews who may find themselves in desperate straits into the future.

I agree with David Samel, who responded to that post by Jerome Slater, that Slater “concedes that this unfairness, which has taken the form of dispossession, military occupation and inequality, has been egregious and intolerable, but argues that it theoretically could have been kept to an acceptable level and could possibly be reduced to such level in the future. I think there are some serious flaws in his analysis that deserve attention.” And Samel continues from there.

Following the response by David Samel, Jerome Slater responded to Samel’s response.

Well, I have written here several times now on the issue of Zionism. To me, it is fine if collectivists want to create a homeland for people who share the same religious or ethnic heritage in whatever territory they wish, as long as they are peaceful, and as long as they honestly acquire whatever lands they need for such a project. But, as Murray Rothbard noted, the acquisition of the land of Palestine by the Zionists was a matter of conquest, not by voluntary association and voluntary contracts. Additionally, the displacement of thousands of Arabs that was essentially ethnic cleansing to make way for the newcomers, and the subsequent abuses, theft of Arab-owned lands, and State-institutionalized discrimination against the territory’s own indigenous population, have tarnished Zionism, and, I think, permanently so.

If only the Zionists were not extremists, and did not insist on Palestine and only Palestine as the new place to be the homeland for the world’s Jews. But that is what they insisted on, and based solely on the mystical emotionalism of Biblical scriptures. There is also this collectivist notion of Jews as the “chosen people” that I very much do not agree with because, in my opinion, NO ONE individual or group is or had been selected by God to be “chosen” or “special.”

We are all God’s children and with equal value, in my opinion.

Dinosaurs Need to Get With the Times

The New York Times now has its paywall in effect. It is extremely doubtful that it will last that long, as the newspaper with All the Fabrications that Fit on One Page has been such a propaganda rag for the State at a time when the State’s corruption and ineptitude is getting much exposure these days.

Business Insider gives tips on how to get around the Times‘s paywall, including deleting cookies and using different browsers, but I will not participate in suggesting ways to circumvent a business’s requirements for paying to use the business’s service. I’m not even sure if “IP” is the issue.

But the Times needs to get with the New Media, and new technologies involved with their publishing. They obviously still don’t understand how the Internet works. There are many other websites and blogs that often link to the Times’s articles, including my own blog.

At least I did. The Times needs to understand that when other blogs and websites link to the Times, that brings New Readers to the Times, which means new and more people viewing not just the Times’s articles but their Ads, which means greater number of clicks on their ads, which means more purchases of their advertisers’ products and services, which means more revenue for the Times – all provided for the Times, for FREE by these other websites and blogs linking to the Times! They need to stop being such dinosaurs, and they need to understand these new ways of doing things, and get with the times.

I stopped linking to the Boston Herald a long time ago  when I saw that they archive their articles after only 7 days and require you to pay to see their “older” articles. Why should I have a link to an article when a reader might see that post in two weeks and click on a link only to see that one has to pay to view the actual linked article? Obviously, I won’t be linking to the New York Times any more.

As for deleting cookies, I’ve been deleting cookies on the browser for years now, sometimes during Internet sessions, but usually when I’m finished and closing the browser. But deleting cookies on the browser during sessions is not a good idea if you’re in the middle of working on something in which you are logged in, because  the cookie that’s keeping your logged-in status recorded must stay in place while you’re doing your work or working on a post (unless you “save” your material thus far, before deleting cookies).

The reason I’ve been deleting cookies regularly is to protect myself from tracking cookies — many advertising websites now do tracking of your Internet browsing, and to do that they place a tracking cookie on the browser. But it’s even more than just tracking from which one has to protect oneself. In 2005 I had a crash course in all this stuff with my previous computer (actually, my computer ’01-’05 previous to my previous computer which is previous to my current computer), because of this spyware/malware/trojan/virus that ruined that earlier computer.

Since then, I’ve been using Firefox for a browser. However, the newest version of Firefox, FF 4, seems to be a big disappointment to many people, so I’m sticking with FF 3 for now. I also have Safari, but it just doesn’t have some of the features that I get from Firefox. (To even comment on Internet Explorer would be a waste of time.) But one thing that Firefox lets you do is prevent specific websites from placing cookies on your browser. You click on Tools>Options>Remember History (scroll down)>Use custom settings for history>Exceptions, and then type in the name of website whose cookies you want to block (e.g. “NYTimes.com”).

“War Powers” Arguments

The blogosphere is spastic with this raging argument between neocon talk show host Mark Levin and economic historian Thomas Woods (author of Rollback, Nullification, and Meltdown, among several other works), regarding the existence of a U.S. president’s Constitutional authorization to start a non-defensive war without Congressional approval. As usual, warmonger Levin apparently believes in unquestioned presidential executive (i.e. dictatorial) power to do whatever he wants to do, without anyone else’s approval and based on nothing but his own whim, and Woods has given Constitutional interpretations and historical cases to show that the Constitution does not allow the president to just start a war whenever he pleases. Some of their arguments can be viewed here, here, here, here, here, and here (so far).

But I have a different take on all that. First of all, if Levin actually believed in the original intent of the Founding Fathers, as many so-called conservatives claim to do, then he would understand the true meaning and wisdom underlying George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s advice that our U.S. government keep itself out of other nations’ business, but not get in the way of free, private Americans’ right to travel and trade freely with and among others in foreign nations. There is a basic morality involved in such wisdom to which the politically-motivated and morally-compromised U.S. Constitution just does not adhere.

Because of internationalists, globalists, collectivists and statists of Levin’s ilk, the U.S. government’s military has been used for many, many decades primarily as the president’s personal army, carrying out the political agenda of a president’s typically narcissistic concerns of getting himself reelected, or getting members of his party elected. That’s the bottom line. That is what militarism in a democracy has given us: short-sighted political calculations, at the expense of long-term economic calculation and fiscal/societal responsibility.

Even Major Women Political Achievements Aren’t Enough to Change Things

Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket, died on Sandra Day O’Connor’s 81st birthday. O’Connor was the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, representing another major achievement for women in America. Also, just the day before Ferraro died, Rep. Michele Bachmann announced her “exploratory committee,” i.e. campaign for the presidency. A bunch of coincidences? Probably. But will Bachmann win the presidency? Or will Bachmann win the nomination and lose to Obama? Or will Bachmann win the VP spot and end up like Ferraro, being on a losing ticket? Or will Bachmann not even get any nomination, and end up like Elizabeth Dole, or worse, like Patsy Schroeder in a weep-fest? Who knows.

Incidentally, while Geraldine Ferraro-Zaccaro was the first woman major-party vice-presidential nominee, she was not the first woman on a party ticket in a presidential election. In 1972, Tonie Nathan was the Libertarian Party vice-presidential nominee, with John Hospers as the presidential nominee. They received one electoral vote, making Nathan the first woman in U.S. history to receive an electoral vote.

Unfortunately, the LP has not gained any traction since then, in my opinion. In 1988, I voted for Ron Paul, and was extremely disappointed in his low vote count. Political parties are not the right way to go, that is, if you want to undo all the intrusions that government, especially the U.S. government, has inflicted Americans with in over 200 years of this country’s existence. What it will take is convincing people of the immorality, impracticality and counter-productivity of allowing a centralized compulsory territorial authority to have power over the lives and property of others, which gives the agents of the State the power to be above the law and have the power to use compulsion against others. The more people amongst the population who are made to be aware of these truths, the more who will withdraw their consent to being abused, beaten, raped, robbed, defrauded, bamboozled, exploited, expropriated, kicked around, banged up, tyrannized and violated.

Turning to politicians to solve things is not the answer.

The Fascist, Communist, Criminal Police State of America

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) reports that the Nazi federal government in Washington that owns our lives plans to study new anti-”terrorism” technologies (frankly, I’m terrified of this damn Nazi out-of-control criminal organization in Washington and what they’re doing to our Liberty, or what’s left of it! It is THEY who are the terrorists!), to use the same kind of “back-scatter” radiation-cancer-causing scanners and cameras on pedestrians and motorists on public streets that DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest.”

The material obtained from DHS (Department of Hitlers and Stalins) by EPIC also includes references to the corporate contracts, the special interests whose cronies would benefit from such egregious invasions of our privacy, our Liberty and our security. Those corporations include, according to Forbes, “Siemens Corporations, Northeastern University, and Rapiscan Systems.” Hmmm. More profits for Rape-scan and Michael Chertoff. These criminals are sick, and yes, they are criminals in Washington, including the war-starters Bush and Cheney, and the elder Bush who started all this, as far as I’m concerned.

According to the Forbes blog,

One project allocated to Northeastern University and Siemens would mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians, assess what they carried, and even track their eye movements. In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.

This totalitarian police state scheme is primarily because of Bush, who could never have been elected to anything had his daddy not been a previous president, and Cheney, who has spent his entire adult life feeding at the public trough starting with being Donald Rumsfeld’s assistant in the 1960s (after flunking out of Yale and having to extend college for two extra years in Wyoming because of his poor academic performance, and after his drunk driving arrests, and getting draft-deferments so that he could later be called the “draft-dodging chickenhawk warmonger” by his many fans). And I’m not kidding about “feeding at the public trough.” Cheney, with the exception of his five years as Halliburton CEO and his years with those neocon think tanks (if you call it “thinking”), Cheney literally has been employed by government, or benefited from government contracts (via Halliburton, etc.) most of his adult life.

Obviously, the obsessive Security State Nazis have never read the Declaration of Independence, and do not have any understanding of the concept of presumption of innocence, Due Process and the right to be left alone by the government unless and until agents of the State have actual specific reason to suspect a specific individual of having committed a specific crime of theft, trespass or physical aggression against another specific individual or group (victim). Otherwise, people have an inherent inalienable right to be LEFT ALONE. I am so sorry that retards don’t understand that.

That means that we all (Yes, ALL, even including Muslims and Arabs, Ms. Geller. I know, that Helen is way out there. Oh, well.) have a right to go about our business, walking along the sidewalks or driving our cars, without our belongings being searched, or our bodies and vehicles being scanned, and without being asked for “our papers,” or even being approached by any agent of the State or by any police or military agent. I am sorry that some people just don’t understand these things.

As I noted in my Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon, these conservatives and war supporters who have been supporting the past ten years’ police state, given to us by Bush and Cheney, and who supported the PATRIOT Act for purely emotional and fear-monger reasons and without actually reading through the bill, may soon regret their support for such idiotic and retarded anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-security policies, as such policies are surely to be used against them by all those lefty Cass Sunsteins who slither around in Washington looking for any excuse to pry, search, censor, oppress and who hunger for that police power they love so much. (“Liberals?” What a joke!)

Kevin Carson notes that it doesn’t even matter what the “law” is, as “law enforcement” (another joke) officials don’t really care what the actual laws are, and are really going to do what they please, what serves their need for more power over others, and  use “asset forfeiture” as an excuse to merely steal from their fellow citizens.

I think the “collective bargaining” fights in Wisconsin have been exposing exactly what America has become, this entitlement mentality in which “laborers” organize themselves to take what they want from the actual producers of society through the armed force of government. They have a right to your stuff, as do the National Security police state contractors who benefit from the police state contracts, as they are merely living off the same taxpayers and producers via the Pentagon and DHS’s own redistribution-of-wealth schemes.

And our Liberty is being burned to the ground by these criminals. And so is our security as well. We are literally less secure now, because we have these goddamn police intruders literally perpetrating crimes of aggression, theft, and trespass against presumably innocent people, with all these presumption-of-guilt schemes. It is the agents of the State who are the real criminals and the real terrorists. The criminal State. Don’t any of those people have a conscience?

The State vs. Christian Moral Values

March 21, 2011

© 2011 LewRockwell.com.(Link to article)

Political activist Kevin Zeese has this article about the U.S. military’s imprisonment and solitary confinement of Army PFC Bradley Manning, suggesting that when the U.S. government persecutes alleged whistleblowers in such a manner, it is a warning to all of us that we ought not even think about revealing the government’s illicit acts. And Laurence Vance asks the question, “Is Libertarianism compatible with religion?” describing the relationship between Christianity and the political philosophy of libertarianism. Both Zeese’s and Vance’s articles are transcripts of speeches they had given recently.

To me, libertarianism is the political version of the philosophy Live and Let Live, while Christianity, from my understanding of it, is the religious expression of that philosophy. My own basic philosophies are, “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

I believe in the libertarian view that advocates a society of voluntary associations and contracts amongst the people, and not a society of compulsory associations and contracts. Behaving peacefully is important, as is respecting the rights of others. Those rights include the right of the individual to be free from aggression, which means one must not be permitted to violate anyone else’s person or property – no theft (or fraud), no trespass, no physical aggression (except in defending and protecting oneself against previously-initiated aggression by others).

The Bush crusaders (now the Obama crusaders) who wanted to push their will onto others in foreign territories have not been “Christian” in the aforementioned sense. And supporters of the government’s use of violence, military destruction of property, the murder of innocents and the territorial occupation of foreign lands, cannot honestly claim to believe in Christian moral values.

And those who are rightfully angered when criminals hijack planes and murder 3,000 innocent Americans, but then advocate or condone the U.S. government’s own murders of innocents (in fact, hundreds of thousands of them) abroad, cannot honestly claim to believe in the philosophy, “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

Sometimes I wonder, when it comes to some people’s view of patriotism, whether they are really loyal to our country of America or whether their loyalty is more with the government, right or wrong.

Now, the State is an institution of compulsory government, an institution of territorial monopoly in which the agents of the State have been given authority over the rest of the population. The State’s agents are not given authority through voluntary association or contract or the consent of those over whom State authority rests, but by compulsion. The State’s authority is enforced not by the Rule of Law but by the State’s own self-assigned officialdom and armaments, and threats of aggression.

The State’s existence is on the inherent institutionalization of trespass and aggression. If one’s loyalty is to the State, as opposed to being loyal to the Rule of Law and to moral values, then one’s loyalty to the State requires one to support acts by agents of the State that are immoral, thus un-Christian. Unfortunately, too many people, in their intellectual laziness and their passive, blind obedience to anything the State tells them, have accepted their government’s crimes against others (including against themselves, such as with the TSA and other domestic violations of person and property), in the name of “fighting terrorism,” or punishing people for using drugs or whatever.

It is very difficult for me to believe that someone who is Christian-minded and who believes in the aforementioned moral values could approve of a government knowingly apprehending and detaining totally innocent individuals at random as the Bush Administration had done for years following 9/11. Or the U.S. military’s and CIA’s indiscriminate drone-bombing murders of innocent Afghani and Pakistani civilians. Those who believe that’s okay but don’t believe it’s okay for Al-qaeda or the Pakistani government to fly remote-controlled drones over the U.S. and indiscriminately murder innocent Americans do not believe in the philosophy, “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

And how could true adherents to Christian moral values have approved of our own government during the early 1990s deliberately destroying Iraqi civilian infrastructure that damaged electrical, water and sewage treatment facilities, causing the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, and with the intention of causing disease and death? Which the U.S. military did do, followed by the U.S.-led sanctions that included withholding the materials needed for rebuilding the infrastructure, causing skyrocketing cancer and child mortality rates by the year 2000. This was the intention of the military, as told in the Washington Post in 1991, and by James Bovard in this article.

I frequently refer to that Bovard article and similar ones on the U.S. government’s treatment of Iraq during the 1990s, because we are rarely told the truth by the mainstream media. Sometimes, the truth needs to be extracted, especially out of secretive government bureaus, just as a dentist pulls a tooth. Yes, it is obviously that painful to most government and military bureaucrats for the truth to be revealed.

When dealing with an institution that relies on secrecy in order to cover up its immoral acts, alternative news sources and reporters are needed. Currently, the mainstream news media are well-entrenched with the State’s propaganda.

Remember, the truth shall set you free.

That brings me to the issue of Army PFC Bradley Manning, accused of leaking documents that exposed various acts of diplomatic buffoonery and corruption as well as alleged war crimes by the U.S. military, and more recently, accused of “aiding the enemy,” even though the military has not revealed exactly who the enemy is. The leaker didn’t leak documents to any foreign government, only to a media organization, and the military has acknowledged that no Americans stationed abroad and no Americans here in the U.S. are in any danger because of the leaked information. And there are many questions as to whether or not Manning is the actual leaker.

If Manning actually is the document leaker, then he certainly couldn’t have done that out of any loyalty to foreign governments, and probably didn’t do it with any particular criminal intent. The leaks were most probably out of loyalty to America, a nation that purports to be one of Liberty in which the people were intended to have authority over their government, and not the other way around. America was intended to be a nation whose foundation rests on the morality of presumption of innocence and Due Process. Those American values are much in sync with the aforementioned Christian values.

But how can anyone who believes in Christian values approve of the kind of imprisonment, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation and forced extended nudity that Bradley Manning has had to endure for many months, especially when he has not been tried nor convicted of any crimes?

And, if he is tried and convicted, what are the crimes that he would be convicted of? Harming Americans’ security? The government has already stated that no leaks have put any American or soldier in harm’s way.

No, the real crime that has been committed has been that of exposing the crimes of the State, pure and simple. In an authoritarian society, that is the kind of “justice” one can find, and it certainly isn’t Christian or moral. Over the past century, many more crimes have been committed by States, not in the name of religion but in the name of democracy or other political world view, including by the U.S. government – murders of innocents, theft and destruction of property, counterfeiting, violations of basic civil liberties – than could ever have been committed by private individuals or groups outside of the government sector of societies.

When the government uses a whistleblower soldier such as Bradley Manning in such an inhumane way for the purpose of warning the rest of us that we all had better be good, obedient sheeple regardless of the government’s crimes against us and foreigners, then it is probably time for the people to actively work to restructure the society and remove that kind of armed officialdom from such an immoral agency.

The current statist society of institutionalized violence and destruction under authoritarian State rule should be replaced by a libertarian, Christian society of peaceful people, acting voluntarily amongst one another, in which everyone – including agents of the State – must follow the Rule of Law.

Former Libertarian Gene Burns Recovers From Fall

One of my favorite talk radio hosts of all time (besides Jerry Williams of course) is Gene Burns. Gene was on WRKO in Boston and, with Jerry Williams (1923-2003) of course, kept WRKO #1 in the ratings for years in Boston radio, mostly during the 1980s. Talk radio now ain’t what it used to be, that’s for sure. But for over 15 years now Gene has been on KGO in San Francisco, his show from 7-10 pm PT, with the usual high ratings. However, he hasn’t been on his show for several months because of a fall he had that hurt his back and caused some bleeding in his brain. After rumors that he was leaving his show, he apparently won’t be leaving and will resume when he’s feeling better. Gene Burns has a history of medical problems and is 70 now. He made an appearance last week on his show filled in by Pat Thurston.

(UPDATE: Gene Burns is now on AM 910 KKSF in San Francisco.)

(UPDATE II: Early 2012, Gene had a stroke and has not returned to his show on KKSF.)

(UPDATE III: May 25th, 2013: Gene Burns died.)

If you’re familiar with Gene, you might know that he briefly was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1984, but withdrew because, as he stated at the time on his radio show, he didn’t like the way the LP hierarchy were running things (because they were pinheads, and still are — duh!). During the 1980s, Gene was a “principled libertarian,” being the most pro-private property, pro-freedom-of-association and pro-freedom-of-contract speaker I had heard. (In fact, in 1984, Gene Burns was quite enthusiastically endorsed for president by none other than Murray Rothbard!)

But Gene is not so much a “principled libertarian” in recent years, I’m sorry to say. In 2008 Gene Burns announced that he was frustrated with the LP, as it had “failed to gain meaningful traction,” and because he couldn’t “sit this one out secure in my Libertarian bubble,” he re-registered as a Democrat, and, while it doesn’t state it in his announcement, I believe he said he voted for Obama for president. I had also heard him in the last year say things like, “we need some form of nationalized health care,” and so on. In other words, Gene went from being that principled libertarian that I had learned so much from during the 1980s to, well, a left-winger, quite frankly, and it’s been disappointing, and it’s very sad. Others have noticed the changed.

However, I also heard Gene say in the past year, on the podcasts I had heard, many views that favor personal responsibility, such as leaving people alone on the roads who had not done anyone else any harm (such as “drunk drivers”), but cracking down on drivers whose recklessness actually did cause others harm, including teenagers. He also reiterated his support for “exiling dangerous people,” as in his suggestion during the 1980s of sending dangerous criminals off to some island and letting them fend for themselves (as an alternative to the State-imposed death penalty). So, there’s still hope in some ways.

Anyway, it sounds like Gene is recovering from his accident and will return to his radio show in San Francisco. He’s only 70, after all. These days, 70 is actually still quite young, as opposed to a few decades ago when 70 was still considered “old.” My Grandma Sylvia lived to be in her mid-90s with no major health issues, and passed away only a few years ago. Longevity is a good thing, if you’re in good health that is, but not so much if you have to deal with a lot of pain and suffering. Also, I occasionally listen to Steve LeVeille, the overnight host on WBZ in Boston, early in the morning, and on some occasions on Friday mornings during the 4-5 am hour, “Generosa from Peabody” calls in. She’s 98 and turns 99 in August. There’s a photo of the two of them together at a gathering. It’s nice to hear her call the show and give an update on what she’s doing.

If Gene Burns wants to return to radio, maybe he can consider returning to Boston, and see what the lefty nutsos like Deval Patrick and “Mumbles Menino” are doing to Massachusetts — I’m sure that will cause Gene to return to his libertarian way of thinking.

Yes, Beck Is an “Anarchist”

This morning on his radio show, Glenn Beck was talking about being accused by Media Matters of either being an anarchist or suggesting that the Founding Fathers were themselves anarchists. He did say that he had stated that he and/or the Founders were “two steps above” an anarchist. But in his perhaps too-lengthy clarification of that, he was describing “anarchy” as (paraphrasing) “turning over cars and setting them on fire and shooting the police,” etc.

Beck is not correct on the real meaning of “anarchy.” It literally means “no ruler.” In the more modern era, we can say that anarchy is the absence of a State, or a formal government, or maybe even more precisely, an absence of a formal, organized compulsory government. Theoretically (and in some areas of the world, they have existed), communities can make their own governments, but not make them compulsory, only voluntary organizations. In my view, that does not make a State, because I (personally) define a “State” as a compulsory government that usurps control over all those within a particular territorial area.

When Beck describes “anarchy” as “turning over cars and setting fire to them and shooting the police,” that says nothing as far as whether or not there is an absence of government, compulsory government or a “ruler.” More accurately, “turning over cars and setting fire to them and shooting the police” is criminality. Destruction of property and harming of human life is criminality. Criminals, psychopaths, aggressors and property invaders and intruders do those things, irrespective of whether there exists a State, or compulsory government, or a “ruler.” However, we have seen that the State as it exists today and especially for the past century, and its agents have been the most egregious violators of life, liberty and property ever in World History. And that’s a fact.

What we who advocate true freedom and a society that respects individual rights, private property and free markets in the absence of coercion and aggression, believe should exist is something called natural order, something that Hans-Hermann Hoppe has referred to quite a lot in his writing and lectures, particularly in his book, Democracy, The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. Here is the Intro to that book at the Mises Institute.